Gates v. Briones

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 BRANDON T. GATES, CASE NO. C20-0895-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 JOSE BRIONES, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 16) to the report 16 and recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate 17 Judge (Dkt. No. 11). Having thoroughly considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the 18 relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff’s 19 objections (Dkt. No. 16), ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 11), DENIES Plaintiff’s application to 20 proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1), and DISMISSES the case without prejudice for the 21 reasons explained herein. 22 In a proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, while detained at the Island 23 County Correction and Detention Facility in early 2020, Defendants violated his Equal 24 Protection rights and rights under certain federal criminal statutes. (Dkt. No. 9 at 4–8.) Judge 25 Theiler reviewed Plaintiff’s original complaint, as well as his amended complaint, and found that 26 the amended complaint both alleged frivolous claims and failed to state a claim for which relief 1 could be granted. (Dkt. No. 11 at 4–7.) On this basis, Judge Theiler recommended that the Court 2 deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 11.) Plaintiff objected to Judge Theiler’s recommendation, (Dkt. No. 4 16), which the Court addresses herein. 5 Objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R are reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 6 District courts review de novo those portions of an R&R to which a party properly objects. See 7 id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections are required to enable the district court to “focus 8 attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” 9 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). General objections, or summaries of arguments 10 previously presented, have the same effect as no objection at all, since the court’s attention is not 11 focused on any specific issues for review. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th 12 Cir. 2007). 13 The Court may deny an application to proceed in forma pauperis and shall dismiss a 14 complaint if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if it lacks a cognizable legal theory, and a complaint fails 16 to state a claim for which relief can be granted when it lacks sufficient facts to support a 17 cognizable legal theory. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Bell Atl. Corp. v. 18 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 19 Judge Theiler found that Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint lacks a cognizable legal 20 theory with respect to the statutory violations because 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 do not establish 21 causes of action for private citizens, nor can they form the basis of a claim brought pursuant to 22 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 11 at 3–5.) The Court agrees. Judge Theiler also found that the 23 complaint failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to § 1983 with respect 24 to the alleged Equal Protection violations because the complaint lacks facts suggesting that 25 Defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against Plaintiff based upon his 26 membership in a protected class. (Id.) The Court also agrees. 1 In objecting to Judge Theiler’s R&R, Plaintiff does not meaningfully address the 2 deficiencies in his complaint identified by Judge Theiler. (See generally Dkt. No. 9.) Instead, he 3 restates and expands upon the same allegations, rather than addressing why they are sufficient, as 4 stated in the amended complaint, to support a cognizable legal claim. (Id.) This does not cure the 5 deficiencies Judge Theiler addressed in her R&R. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to identify an error in 6 Judge Theiler’s R&R. 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 16) to the R&R (Dkt. No. 11) are OVERRULED; 9 2. The R&R (Dkt. No. 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 10 3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) is 11 DENIED; 12 4. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 13 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to count this dismissal as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1915(g); and 15 6. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff and to Judge 16 Theiler. 17 DATED this 29th day of January 2021. A 18 19 20 John C. Coughenour 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26